Contact us   Feedback   Subscription   New User   Login      
Tax Management India .com
TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

2016 (3) TMI 876 - HIMACHAL PRADESH HIGH COURT

2016 (3) TMI 876 - HIMACHAL PRADESH HIGH COURT - TMI - Short deduction of tax from the payment of commission paid by BSNL/MTNL to their public call office franchises - ITAT deleted the demand - Held that:- The issue involved in all these appeals is similar and the Punjab and Haryana High Court titled as The Commissioner of Income Tax (TDS), Chandigarh versus M/s Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited [2013 (3) TMI 199 - PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT ] wherein held no substantial question of law arises for c .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

a clarificatory amendment and would be applicable even in respect of assessment years prior to insertion of the said amendment.

It is apt to record herein that the Apex Court in a latest judgment in the case titled as Neon Laboratories Limited versus Medical Technologies Limited and others, reported in (2016 (3) TMI 787 - SUPREME COURT) has directed that every High Court must give due deference to the law laid down by other High Courts - Decided in favor of assessee. - ITA No. 13 of .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ryana High Court in a batch of ITAs, ITA No. 261 of 2012, titled as The Commissioner of Income Tax (TDS), Chandigarh versus M/s Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited, being the lead case, decided on 13th February, 2013, has determined the issue. Further prayed that these appeals may also be determined accordingly. His statement is taken on record. He has also made available copy of the judgment made by the Punjab and Haryana High Court in ITA No. 261 of 2012 and other connected matters across the Board, .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

me Court Cases 672, has directed that every High Court must give due deference to the law laid down by other High Courts. It is profitable to reproduce para 7 of the judgment herein: 7. The primary argument of the Defendant-Appellant is that it had received registration for its trademark ROFOL in Class V on 14.9.2001 relating back to the date of its application viz. 19.10.1992. It contends that the circumstances as on the date of its application are relevant, and on that date, the Plaintiff-Resp .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 



|| Home || Acts and Rules || Notifications || Circulars || Schedules || Tariff || Forms || Case Laws || Manuals ||

|| About us || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || TMI Database || Members || Site Map ||

© Taxmanagementindia.com [A unit of MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd.] All rights reserved.

Go to Mobile Version